status of Roger Ebert

[davejames]

I've never understood why Roeper gets such a bad rap from people. Most of his arguments seem intelligent and well-reasoned, and his discussions with Scott and Phillips are always entertaining to watch.

Ebert on the other hand would usually just nitpick a movie to death. I still can't get over how he dismissed Spielberg's WOTW completely because he didn't like the freakin tripod design. lol

 

[Kegek]

I've never understood why Roeper gets such a bad rap from people. Most of his arguments seem intelligent and well-reasoned, and his discussions with Scott and Phillips are always entertaining to watch.

I agree with you there. Most of the criticisms of Roeper's reviewing style can in theory be easily levelled against Ebert as well; and as I've noted I have agreed with Roeper and not Ebert on some films.

I think it just comes down to personality. Ebert can always seem very polite and charming; Roeper not as much so. He also has the disadvantage of the shadow of Gene Siskel looming over him.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

when I find the exact quote I'll post it, but I read an Ebert review of a film when he mentiooned that for certain film-goers, film itself was analogous to prayer. I can't imagine such a statement coming from Roeper, and certainly it could not be taken seriously. roeper is a nice guy, but his passion doesn't run nearly as deep, nor does his knowledge, and ..watch any of the reviews on atthemoviestv.com .. he tries very hard to packaging his reviews in well-rehearsed statements filled with puns that often reflect both his attitude while hearkening back to the title of the film in ways that are much to clever and neat to be really sincere.

 

[TGTheodore]

Movie critique is quite different, depending on the form and media.

Writing to be read is quite a different style than writing to present a quick capsule review on television or radio. And the written word still carries much more weight and "legitimacy" than the broadcast word.

Ebert holds up well in both, whether you agree with him or not. I'm just curious how much longer his name will be in the title of the show. I know he holds a big piece of the "thumbs-up" trademark, but it makes no sense to keep his name in the title if he's not on camera. (I mean, I'd love for him to be able to return someday, but ... )

--Ted

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'd watch his show even if his part was subtitled. Appropriate for a movie critic...

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I wish him the best! I miss him on the show. I never liked Roeper, who seems more interested in filling reviews with clever puns and idioms and lacks the real knowledge of film and the true, unbridled passion that Ebert has. When Roeper says that a film is "so well-done" it sounds more like he's talking about steak.

Agreed. I recently read Ebert's book Questions for the Movie Answer Man. It reminded me of how much I miss him on the show because he has a pure wit and a pure love of film. Roeper was an interesting counterpoint but he can't carry the show on his own. (Still, it's far better than that awful, fawning Reel Talk that ABC15 airs right after Ebert & Roeper on Sunday nights.)

 

[Ryan]

Ebert was always the lesser of Siskel and Ebert, but Roeper is by far the lesser of Ebert and Roeper.

Yep. Siskel's views on movies more closely matched mine and Roeper just doesn't bring anything to the table. I do like Ebert's written reviews though (even though I usually differ in taste) as they usually give me something to think about.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

That's the big thing. Agree or disagree: it hardly matters, really. Siskel and Ebert make me think.... whether its a summer fun flick or a big, deep film, thye made me think. Not Roeper.. he just goe through the motions.
Example:
Looking at threads here about No Country for Old Men, and reading Ebert's take, caused me to think. Nothing Roeper said about it made me think. It was almost like he gave it a good review because all critics liked it.

 

[cardinal biggles]

(Still, it's far better than that awful, fawning Reel Talk that ABC15 airs right after Ebert & Roeper on Sunday nights.)

Is that the show hosted by Leonard Maltin? God, he annoys the fuck out of me.

 

[TGTheodore]

(Still, it's far better than that awful, fawning Reel Talk that ABC15 airs right after Ebert & Roeper on Sunday nights.)

Is that the show hosted by Leonard Maltin? God, he annoys the fuck out of me.

I believe it's Jeffrey Lyons and the British woman.

I like Lyons, but I don't think they click together at all. And a lot of the show is quite cloying. I rarely like interviews on review shows. Seems like a major conflict of interest.

--Ted

 

[voggmo]

Ebert was much more agreeable-likeable than Siskel. Siskel was a whiner-complainer. Ebert would have kicked his ass in an MMA bout.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Because that's how mature adults settle things, right voggmo?

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

(Still, it's far better than that awful, fawning Reel Talk that ABC15 airs right after Ebert & Roeper on Sunday nights.)

Is that the show hosted by Leonard Maltin? God, he annoys the fuck out of me.

I believe it's Jeffrey Lyons and the British woman.

I like Lyons, but I don't think they click together at all. And a lot of the show is quite cloying. I rarely like interviews on review shows. Seems like a major conflict of interest.

I think that both Lyons and that (very hot) British woman are intelligent, insightful film critics but the format of the show is what kills it. It feels too pre-packaged. Their reviews are constantly pulling their punches. Half the time, I can't even tell if they liked a movie or not. Plus, you can tell that their comments are very carefully pre-scripted and that they seem to have made a game out of who can speed read off of the teleprompter more quickly. If they slowed the show down, ditched the hollow celebrity interviews, and allowed the reviews to have more candor & spontaneity, I think you'd have a really good show.

I like Leonard Maltin. He's a bit of a cheeseball but he's a likable guy who lets himself have strong opinions but seems to put it all in perspective that it's just a movie.

 

[entfan4ever]

God bless his strength and conviction. I admire that he doesn't want to hide his illness.

 

[voggmo]

Who said Siskel was mature?

 

[Ryan]

That's the big thing. Agree or disagree: it hardly matters, really. Siskel and Ebert make me think.... whether its a summer fun flick or a big, deep film, thye made me think. Not Roeper.. he just goe through the motions.

Ebert has a level of knowledge of movies, their history, and their techniques that Roeper just doesn't display. I really like Roeper's Op/Ed writing but as a movie critic Ebert is on a completely different level than him.

The other thing that isn't mentioned much is that Ebert has a great wit. The best advice I've seen on constructing a punchline came from one of his columns.